Thoughts of Inspiration!

A question about Atheism versus Christianity.

A question about Atheism versus Christianity. In order to ask the question I must first define Atheism and Christianity. Definition of Atheism: 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. Definition of Christianity: 1. a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior. Now both of these definitions contain the term belief (something believed; an opinion or conviction confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief, confidence; faith; trust). Here is the question; how can anyone prove the existence of God or disprove the existence of God? It is faith either way. Atheist try to disprove the unprovable through their belief and True Christians just believe that God does exist. Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. If Atheist believe God does not exist, why try to disprove His existence? If Christians believe God does exist, why try and prove His existence? It is based upon faith! A known Atheist once made this statement about Christianity; “If Christians truly believe that there is a God and the consequence for not putting faith in Him(Jesus Christ) will lead you to Hell, it is Immoral for Christians not to Evangelize the World!” Still the question is how can an Atheist attack something they say does not exist? Does not a person have to believe, either for or against, in order to have a belief or faith? Just something to think about.

Related

7 Responses

This is a common misconception. The null hypothesis is that there are no gods, nothing supernatural. A positive effect would be the existence of the deities. It is unreasonable and irrational to reject the null hypothesis and accept the positive hypothesis of existence of supernatural beings in the absence of no reason to do so. Since there is a complete paucity of evidence for the existence of any god, I provisionally maintain the null hypothesis. No faith is required.

If the null hypothesis is wrong, then there would be evidence in support of a positive effect (i.e., existence of supernatural being). There is no such evidence, therefor it is not rational to accept the hypothesis that god(s) exist. There has to be a reason (and a good one at that) to reject the null hypothesis, and I simply don’t see even a bad reason to do so. (I really hope that you are not going to pull out Pascal’s ridiculous Wager here.) If that sounds like ‘faith’ to you, then you have a very, very strange definition of faith. Faith (blind faith would be a far more accurate term) in this context is accepting the positive effect in the absence of evidence. To put it another way, “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so.” ~ Mark Twain

Here is the question; how can anyone prove the existence of God or disprove the existence of God? It is faith either way.

This is only true if you take ‘faith’ to be synonymous with ‘any opinion at all’. By this reasoning, any conclusion that a person comes to on the existence of any supernatural entity must also be ‘faith’, identical to faith in God. In fact, defining faith in such broad terms would place virtually all reasoning in the realm of faith, which is clearly nonsensical. Atheists do not simply assert that God doesn’t exist (well, the intelligent ones don’t), they have their reasons or arguments and, if they’re honest, they’ll admit where those arguments are weak. Is that what you call ‘faith’?

Still the question is how can an Atheist attack something they say does not exist?

This also makes no sense. What you’re saying here is that nobody should argue against something which they don’t believe in, because doing so would be akin to tacitly admitting that it exists. Do you see the problem with this?

First, faith means trust. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. The very fact that we can reason is the evidence of trust. My opinion, your opinion is all based on our personal faith.
Second I do see a problem with my last question. Let me rephrase it; to argue that something does not exist does not the person have to first believe that something is there? Does God exist? By faith I say He does, by faith Atheist say He doesn’t.

“…to argue that something does not exist does not the person have to first believe that something is there?” No. If I claim that there are pink unicorns on Pluto and you take issue with that, does that mean pink unicorns must exist? No? How DARE you deny the existence of my pink unicorns!

Bertrand Russell put it this way –

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

The remainder of the paragraph is a fallacy which I have ably refuted in above.